Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

More documents

Recommendations

Info

from reopening the issue and the Complaint dismissed without any relief to theComplainant.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 11.005.0288Mr. Pradip B. PatelVsOriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 30.6.2005Repudiation of Own Damage Claim under Motor Vehicle Policy. The Complainant’s jeephad met with an accident. The Respondent relying on their Investigator’s Reportrepudiated the Claim on the grounds that the Insured Vehicle was plying for hirerewardat the time of the Accident. The Investigator had mentioned that the passengersin the insured vehicle have stated to the Police that they had hired the Jeep and weretravelling as passengers. However, on perusal of the statements given by thepassengers; it had been merely stated that they all boarded the Insured Vehicle. Thestatements did never contain any line to the effect that they were travelling for hire -reward. The Legal Advisor of the Respondent too had remarked that the report of hiringof the subject vehicle was merely an imagination of the Investigator and that he hadnot collected documents to support this imagination. Since Repudiation of a Claimcannot be based on some inference; the Respondent was directed to pay the full Claimamount.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 11.004.0352Mr. H. D. AroraVsUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 08.7.2005Claim for accidental loss to Commercial vehicle was rejected on the ground that thedriver was not holding valid licence duly renewed at the time of driving the accidentedvehicle. The Complainant pleaded that vehicle was in parked condition at the time ofaccident. But in the claim form Complainant had mentioned that speed of the vehicle atthe time of vehicle was 20 Kms. per hour. This is contradictory to parked condition.Again the spot Surveyor reported that at the time of accident, the vehicle was beingdriven on surkehj-Gandhinagar Road at Cross - Road when a truck dashed with it. Thisinformation was given to him by the Insured at the time of inspection. It was thusestablished that vehicle was being driven by a person not having valid licence (invaliddue to non-renewal). So the Claim is not payable. Repudiation upheld.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 15.002.0326R. S. SukhadiaVsThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 18.7.2005Respondent did not grant NCB when renewed the vehicle insurance for the period 2003- 04. It was the Complainant’s pleading that he is eligible for 50 % NCB as the Claim
arose prior to application of New Tariff. Respondent contended that new Rules for NCBcame to operative from 1.7.2002 on introduction of GR 27, an hence Complainant is noteligible for NCB. It is observed that as per Clause (b) laid down in the GR the NCBprevailed prior to 1.7.2002 will get changed. The Insured will be entitled to an NCBfrom 1.7.2002 onwards till Claims arises, i.e. if no Claim is made or pending during thepreceding full year of insurance and it the renewal falls due any time between 1.7.02and 30.6.2003. The clarification issued by the Corporate Technical Deptt. of theRespondent also cross-checked. Respondent’s stand for not granting NCB upheld.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 11.002.0188Mr. U. K. KothariVsThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 18.7.2005Complainant’s car was covered under Motor Insurance Policy. The Car accidented on13.10.03. The Accident Claim lodged was rejected as ‘No Claim’ by the Respondent onthe ground of non-compliance of requirements on the part of Complainant. Complainantwas asked to submit repair Bills and re-inspection Report of the Vehicle after repair.The Claim was to be settled on repair basis and not on total loss basis. The loss wasassessed by the Surveyor at Rs. 23,500/- which was less than 75 % of the InsuredDeclared Value Another point for rejection of the Claim was expiry of fitness certificategiven by the RTO Authority to the insured vehicle. The vehicle should not have beninsured in absence of fitness certificate operative on the date of insurance. The Insurerhad knowledge of the year of manufacture of the vehicle and about the essentialcertification at the end of 15 years. So the insurance accepted by them withoutcertification cannot be the ground for denial of the claim. The claim for Rs. 17,625/-being 75 % of assessed repair base loss was allowed to the Complainant.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 11.004.0129Mr. Janaksinh K. ZalaVsUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 21.7.2005Against the amount of Rs. 76,630/- of Motor Own damage claimed by the Complainant,the Surveyor recommended Rs 57,000/- for settlement. This amount was paid afterobtaining consent of the party to accept the above amount in full and final settlement ofthe Claim. The consent was unqualified and not obtained either fraudulently ormisrepresentation or and undue influence. Supreme Court case ‘United India InsuranceCo. Ltd., Vs. Ajmere Singh Cotton & General Mills (1999 CCJ 1158 SC) was quoted insupport of this decision to uphold the decision of the Respondent.Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No. 11.002.0303V. N. PatelVsThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 08.8.2005
Page 1 and 2: Vehicle Insurance PolicyAhmedabad O
Page 3 and 4: Ahmedabad Ombudsman CentreCase No.
Page 5: Institution of Ombudmsman was neith
Page 9 and 10: accepted the payment of penalty, an
Page 11 and 12: Smt. Santilata AcharyaVsOriental In
Page 13 and 14: Insured complainant Shri Pravin Kum
Page 15 and 16: Shri Subhash AggarwalVsNational Ins
Page 17 and 18: was found to be false. He contended
Page 19 and 20: FACTS : Shri Luv Puri got his car b
Page 21 and 22: favour and the transfer was effecte
Page 23 and 24: for the period from 20.11.01 to 19.
Page 25 and 26: complainant was using his car for h
Page 27 and 28: Otherwise, they should pay the admi
Page 29 and 30: proposed for insurance. In this cas
Page 31 and 32: Case No. IO (HYD) / G - 11.005.006S
Page 33 and 34: accident. The complainant did not p
Page 35 and 36: Held : The complainant stated that
Page 37 and 38: Award Dated 3.5.2005The Complainant
Page 39 and 40: National Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Da
Page 41 and 42: Award Dated 28.9.2005The complaint
Page 43 and 44: Shri Akhileswar C. ChaurasiaVsThe N
Page 45 and 46: Section 66 and also 149 (2) of the
Page 47 and 48: surveyor had approved the same, but
Page 49 and 50: In the facts and circumstnces, the
Page 51 and 52: cheque. Not satisfied, the Insured
Page 53 and 54: Aggrieved by the decision the Insur

Vehicle Insurance Policy - Gbic.co.in

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?